Debates of Nov. 28th, 2024

Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech that it would be fantastic if we had no GST on utilities. Well, he had the chance. The member and every Conservative had the chance to remove GST from all home heating. New Democrats fought for that in the last term. The two major parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, joined up and voted against GST removal from utilities. How disingenuous that the member says now, “What if we had an opportunity to get GST off home heating?” Shame on him that he would vote against that measure and then come to this place and try to say the opposite.

Does he have anything to say to explain why he voted against it?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, where do I begin? This is a government that has increased the cost on Canadians exceptionally, beyond anything we have ever seen before, doubling the cost of a mortgage, doubling the cost of rent and increasing the cost of home heat. It is all due to its carbon tax, its inflationary measures. How is it possible the Liberal government has been able to do that? It is with the support of that member and the NDP when they voted 24 times to increase the carbon tax. We will take no lessons on supporting Canadians from that bunch.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be here late into the evening talking about an important measure to support affordability for Canadians.

Before I start, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I would like to just say that I think this is a good measure to support affordability at the right time. Measures like this are all about timing, and if we go back a couple of years, just three years in fact, to when Erin O'Toole was the prime minister, he suggested that we do a GST holiday back in 2021. That was at a time when our inflation was over 4%, and it was going up.

Indeed, over the course of the ensuing months, it went up to 8%, so that idea probably would have had a negative impact on rising inflation rates at the time—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I am wondering if the member can correct the record, because he just referred to somebody as the prime minister who had not been prime minister.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member. It has been a long day in the House of Commons. Yes, I know Erin O'Toole was never the prime minister, but he was the leader of the Conservative Party. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party back in the fall of 2021, when inflation was over 4%, he recommended a GST holiday in Canada to provide some tax relief to Canadians. That was bad timing. It was terrible timing, in fact, because inflation was going like this. It was 4.1% in the summer of 2022 and It went up to 8%. When inflation is on the rise, it is not a good time to do these types of measures. However, right now, inflation is on its way down.

This is good news for Canadians. We need to find ways to stimulate our economy and provide relief and affordability measures. That is why, over the last couple of years, through our economic measures and the hard work of Canadians, our policies have all reversed and reduced inflation in Canada faster than other countries have achieved that.

I had a meeting recently with somebody from Australia, and they were talking about how they have not seen an interest rate cut, and inflation is still quite high. Inflation is persistent in some places around the world, but our economy is recovering from the COVID economic downturn here in Canada. I want to credit Canadians with that. I want to acknowledge that a lot of our economic policies have created the terrain for that change, but this is really good. The inflation situation has abated a bit and that means it is a good time for this. This is a timely measure, supporting our economic recovery with a responsible affordability measure for everyone.

Our economy is actually recovering better than anticipated. Canada is in really good shape economically and fiscally. The Conservatives want to suggest everything is broken in Canada, but I will not tolerate that. Canada is the best country in the world to live in. It is a great country. We are strong. We are economically durable through these challenges. We endured the economic downturn of 2009 quite effectively, and we did this one too, and that is because of the hard work of Canadians, because we have a good, regulated banking system and because we are used to challenges in Canada. When the snow falls, we get outside with our shovels and we shovel our neighbours' driveways. We do not sit around and complain and say everything is broken, because it is not.

All that work, the perseverance of Canadians, has paid off and we can afford nice things. We can afford to do nice things for Canadians right now because of the expediency with which our economic recovery has taken place. We have been through a lot over the last couple of years. I know the Conservatives want to heckle me and they want to suggest Canada is not in great shape, but I will not tolerate that. Canada is the best country in the world and Canada is in great shape because of the hard work of Canadians, not because of complainers, not because of people sitting in the back rows complaining, providing no solutions to anybody's problems but just barking, yelling and screaming about how everything is broken, because it is not. Canada is not broken. As well, we have the solutions.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member should get on the list to speak tonight. He has probably already done three speeches about the previous thing on the agenda. If he wants to speak, he can ask me a question. I hope he would learn to wait for his time. If he wants to speak, he has to get a tie. He is going to sit in the back row and complain.

There are things we can do to help Canadians. The Conservatives have been talking about lowering taxes since the member for Carleton has been the leader. He has said it every single day. We have introduced a measure to lower taxes for Canadians and they are all going to vote against it. The irony and the hypocrisy are not lost on me, but it is also ironic that the Conservatives like to consider themselves the economic stewards, the stewards of the economic purse. That is absolute horse crap. It is not true. That is clear because at a time when inflation was going up, they wanted to do a GST cut, and now that inflation has abated and is on its way down, they do not. That is just basic Economics 101.

The Conservatives have demonstrated time and time again that they do not know how to manage an economy. It was clear when Harper was the prime minister. It was clear when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was their failed leader. They always put forward economic policies that will not help Canadians, but this will. A two-month break on GST and HST between the Christmas holidays and Valentine's Day is going to help Canadians. We are going to give them a little bit of a break because they deserve it, because they have worked really hard.

A lot of Canadians right now do not feel like their hard work is paying off. It is a really challenging thing to go into work every day, similar to going to the gym, and not see that work paying off. We want to see the hard work that Canadians are putting forward pay off. We want to make sure they have a great holiday. If that means they want to go out to dinner with their family and their friends, 13% off of that bill is going to help. Restaurants Canada has come out and said this is great and we will see more people in restaurants. They are going to see a bit of a bump. That is something our economy could use right now.

As the holiday season approaches, a time when people spend a little more on quality time, with some time off from school or work, whether they are sharing meals with loved ones, buying gifts for the kids or just ordering some takeout and chilling out, they deserve a break and our government is there for them.

Canadians deserve this quality time, after the tough years they have been through. Our goal with this bill is to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from it. As the holiday season draws near, people need a helping hand. We want to give them that help. In fact, we are giving them two helping hands.

First, there is the tax holiday for all Canadians. In concrete terms, what we are proposing is a nationwide exemption from the GST and HST on certain products. It would start on December 14 and last two months. That would mean not paying tax on the purchase of clothing, shoes, children's toys, diapers, prepared foods and snacks. There would also be no tax on restaurant meals, beer, wine and Christmas trees.

The purpose of this tax break is to make the holiday season more affordable, especially for families who find this time of year difficult because of the extra expenses that come with it. The GST and HST holiday will make the holiday season more enjoyable for these families. That is the first helping hand, which is included in this bill.

The second helping hand we are proposing is a $250 rebate for millions of Canadians. We will have time to debate that rebate in due course. The tax holiday is what is more pressing right now.

We know that the holiday season is the most expensive time of year for Canadians and that the new year does not always get off to a good start once people have paid off all the holiday spending.

I would also like to point out that we, as a country, can afford to offer this help to Canadians. Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers. The Conservatives suggest Canada has a balance sheet they would like to change. We all want to make sure that we are paying down our debt, that our debt-to-GDP ratio is going down and that our deficit is reduced, but the Conservatives did not do that when they were in power. Mr. Harper saw inflationary deficits and added to our debt without experiencing a global pandemic.

Liberals are good stewards of the Canadian economy, and our recovery is evidence of that. We are one of only two G7 nations with a AAA rating by at least two of the three major global credit rating agencies. That is good news for Canadians. This has been achieved through a responsible economic plan that has put Canada in a really strong fiscal position.

It is also time to put that to work for Canadians. Removing the GST from these qualifying goods for two months will provide an estimated $1.6 billion in federal tax relief. That means $1.6 billion is going to stay in the pockets of the people who earned that money, Canadians, hard-working Canadian families. When they earn that money, it is their money. They will not be spending that money on taxes on goods, and we should debate in the House whether these are things that should ever be taxed, like prepared food in grocery stores or diapers, whether for babies or for adults. That is a debatable topic. We should talk about whether or not those are essential items and perhaps this bill will provide us the opportunity to talk about some of those things.

Budget 2024 removed the GST on psychotherapy and mental health counselling. That was a good move. We should have done that, and we did it. It is a breath of fresh air to talk about a bill like this in the House of Commons. It is a good opportunity to discuss those and more issues.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke is definitely feeling the Liberal vibe. He is drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid. He talked about how great things are.

I would ask the member, what about the over two million people a month who are going to a food bank? What about the record number of people who are living in homeless encampments? What about the record increases in chronic homelessness across the country? What about the seniors who have to go back to work because they cannot afford food and medicine? What about acknowledging all of the people who are facing a real, serious challenge in paying for even basic necessities in Canada? Why does the member not acknowledge them?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are acknowledging that, not by using them as props, and standing in front of people who are facing challenges in Canada and suggesting some group of people is not doing anything, but by actually doing something.

The Conservatives cannot claim to have helped Canadians once in the last nine years. Other parties have put forward private members' bills, ideas, amendments and changes to various pieces of legislation. Other parties have done that work. Even small ones, like the Green Party, have managed to help Canadians. The Conservatives have literally done nothing to help Canadians at all. Unfortunately, that is a stain on their record, because all of us have an opportunity and an obligation to help Canadians.

I do not use people who are struggling, whether through homelessness, addiction or the affordability challenges, as a prop. I show up at events, like yesterday when Food Banks Canada came to the House of Commons. I met with them and we discussed affordability challenges. We discussed solutions, not slogans.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague has heard about the survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that was released early this afternoon. It says that most Canadian businesses do not support the GST holiday and that only 4% of them believe that it will increase their sales.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Restaurants Canada supports this measure. In my opinion, and according to Restaurants Canada, this measure encourages people to go out to eat and gives Canadians an opportunity to spend their hard-earned money.

I would say that measures like this will help every single Canadian. That is why it is unique. It is an opportunity for us all to get behind something for the holidays before we go on break, a measure that is going to support every single Canadian who is going to spend a little money this holiday season.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the NDP had called for the GST to be removed from all essential and basic goods. The Liberals came up with a list that may at times seem far-fetched or over-the-top. What we are seeing, however, is that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are joining forces to keep the GST on in-store prepared foods like sandwiches or roast chicken, as well as on diapers, child car seats, and children's clothing and footwear.

Why do the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives want to keep the GST on these products?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his great question. It is an important question because, as I said earlier, it allows us to examine which products should or should not be taxed.

It is a good opportunity to discuss some of the items out there in the market that have tax on them. They are not the same across jurisdictions. We have all been looking into this recently and we are all surprised to note that some provinces tax certain products differently, but we could harmonize that. We could look into which essential items are taxed so that, over the coming months and year, we look at which items we could provide permanent tax relief on. It is a good question.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary, I believe, knows, Greens are intending to support this measure. However, we do have some concerns, one of them being that it is not focused only on essentials. It is a pretty broad-based measure that includes video game consoles, for example, like a PS5.

The hon. member mentioned food banks specifically. He knows food banks have been calling for the government to fix the Canada disability benefit. A far more targeted measure would be one that is focused on those living disproportionately in poverty, like folks with disabilities. Can he speak to what would be needed after tonight to continue to advocate for folks with disabilities to be lifted out of poverty?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a broad spectrum. It is meant to help Canadians buy presents. I remember, when I was a kid, there was a Nintendo under the tree one year. It really surprised my brother and me because we came from a modest household. If this will help bring joy to young kids, then I support it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Milton for sharing his time with me.

Quebeckers and Canadians have been asking for tax relief for many years, and we recognize that. However, people want permanent relief, not this temporary relief for just two months. If it is not permanent, it should at least be long-term. This measure offers only a two-month break.

The measure proposed by the government and supported by the NDP does not meet public expectations in many respects. To illustrate that, I want to go over the bill briefly, even though all my colleagues have already done so and pointed out certain inconsistencies. I will explain why this measure is aimed at the wrong people. This measure will also be very costly for business owners. In the end, it may be much less beneficial than some people think, not only for the poor, but also for the economy.

The bill provides for a GST exemption or holiday. In Quebec, by the way, the GST amounts to 5%. In other words, there would be a $5 discount on every $100 in taxable purchases. At the grocery store, clients who limit their purchases to staples like bread, milk, eggs, vegetables, fruit, flour, sugar and meat would not have picked up any taxable items. That means they would have saved no money on any of their purchases. As the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie pointed out earlier, when someone buys ready-made sandwiches or roast chicken instead of preparing their food at home, they will save a few pennies, because these items are taxable. However, unless they buy $200 worth of roast chicken or $200 worth of sandwiches, they will save only pennies. Since people rarely buy $200 worth of sandwiches, this person will save just a few cents on their groceries.

The bill includes alcohol, candy and video game cartridges. Physical video games are included, but, I assume, not video games bought online. We have to read between the lines. There is no mention of sports equipment, aside from balls. Books are covered, which is good. However, there are a number of restrictions when it comes to books. There cannot be too many maps or too much advertising. There cannot be this or that. It will be a nightmare for retailers. Parents will find it hard to know which books they can buy without paying the GST.

Then there is the list of toys. In fact, it is more like a description of eligible toys. It is like the government asked all of its employees to go to a department store that sells toys and describe each and every one of them without actually naming them. Those are the descriptions. Retailers and parents will probably be wondering whether a toy is taxed or not. They will wonder if they will save $1 on a $50 toy. Actually, let me recalculate: They will save $2.50 on a $50 toy.

We are also talking about clothing for children under the age of 14. That is something that I mentioned in one of my questions. I am five foot four, which is fairly normal. My husband is five foot nine, even though he claims to be five foot ten. That is fairly normal too. We are very normal, or so we hope. However, our youngest son is 14 years old and wears a size 9 shoe. He wears pants with a 32-inch waist and 32-inch inseam, so he does not fit into the category of children under 14, according to the definition. I will not even talk about the oldest of my three sons. When he was 14, he was nearly six feet tall and wore a size 14 shoe. For him, it is very clear. If he were 14 right now, he would definitely not meet that definition. There may be a bit of an issue with the definitions.

As I was saying earlier, we need to think about the fact that we are talking about essential products. During the holiday season, I can understand wanting to buy a bag of chips, especially since they are often two for $9.50. I would not buy them a few years ago because they were too expensive. A few years ago, I would not buy them because they were too expensive, at two for $5. Now they are two for $9.50. It is nice to be able to afford a little treat when you cannot usually afford it. It is nice when a bag of chips or a bag of candy, whatever it is, becomes the treat of the month. That is great. However, 5% off $9.50 is about 25¢ off the big treat of the month.

Furthermore, when people are struggling financially, they do not think about dining out. As I explained earlier, instead of spending $100 at a restaurant, plus $5 GST, plus $10 Quebec sales tax, plus $15 tip, which is a minimum, a family of four in financial difficulty will go to the grocery store with that $130. They will not go to a restaurant. As long as they only get $5 off $130, they will head to the grocery store and have a nice meal.

I invite folks to look at their grocery receipt to see how much tax they pay. If they have bought household goods and, yes, diapers, it will be a few dollars. Actually, I do not understand why diapers and feminine hygiene products are taxed. Those things should never be taxed. In Quebec, total sales tax is 15%. Divide that by three to see what the GST savings will be. It is not very much. People will save a few cents on groceries a week.

Getting back to the bill, it would allow people to save the GST on catering. To be honest, ordinary people do not hire caterers, especially not if they are struggling financially. For the most part, this measure will help people with money. It will help people who already have money save even more money. They will save $50 in GST on a $1,000 catering bill. That means someone who can afford something that costs $1,000 will be able to save much more than someone who saves 25¢ on their grocery bill or a bag of candy, yet the person saving 25¢ is the one who needs it most. This measure is not targeting the right people.

There has been a lot of talk about business owners. Earlier, there was one member who mocked people, saying that 30 years ago, prices used to change every week. Yes, prices used to change every week 30 years ago because all we had to do was turn the dial on a little machine and re-label the products. Then computers came along, but they were often the 1980-88 models with the spinach-green screens. That was not the same level of programming at all. I used to work at grocery stores back then. I know how much time it could take. Then there are the extra costs. There is the cost of the time it will take to check the inventory, to determine what is taxable and what is not. Reprogramming will also cost thousands of dollars. In Quebec, there is the cost of administering the collection of the GST. This is going to be complicated, and there is nothing in the bill to support Quebec and the provinces, which will have to deal with the chaos that will be unleashed for two months.

To close, when I look at this, I see some things that are good, like books and diapers. I agree, but it should target the people in greatest need, the poorest, and this bill does not do that. It really seems like a purely vote-seeking strategy thought out by people who tried to predict who is going to vote. Will it be those with the most money or those with less? Will it be people who live day-by-day, or those who can see beyond the end of their noses?

I cannot vote for this bill because it does not target the right people, not to mention that it is only effective for two months. If this measure were permanent, then maybe, but that is not the case. People are not stupid. They will catch on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that, as we enter the holiday season, the constituents of members of all political parties in the House are concerned about affordability. I truly believe that by passing this legislation, we are sending a positive message to the constituents we all represent during the holiday season. I do not see, even given the concerns the member has raised, why we would not, at the very least, support our constituents in this way. I personally think it is a very strong, powerful, positive message. It shows that we all care, that we can sympathize and that we want to give our constituents that little extra.

Why would the member not support that idea in principle?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just spent the last 10 minutes giving a rather exhaustive list of reasons why I could not support this bill. There is, for example, the fact that the measure is not permanent or even long term, at the very least. Another reason is that it will enable the least fortunate to save roughly 25¢ to 50¢ per week, while the wealthy, who can afford to pay for catered meals, will be able save $50. Let us look at children's clothing. Things are simple enough for parents who have a young child, but if they have a teenager or someone under the age of 14 who does not fit into children's clothes, that slips through the cracks.

This bill ends up being too discriminatory and is not targeting the right people. That is why I will be voting against it. That is why I am getting dozens of emails from my constituents telling me that they are not stupid and that saving 10¢ or 25¢ is not going to make them vote Liberal.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a nuanced, thoughtful speech that raised some good points.

We in the NDP said that we wanted a permanent tax break on essential items, including heating and cellphone packages. Naturally, the Liberals presented a temporary half measure accompanied by a very haphazard list.

However, I have to disagree with my colleague when she says that this will help the rich more than the poor. I think that is a fundamental error, because the GST is a regressive tax, meaning that the proportional impact hurts the middle class and the poor more than the rich. When someone earns $200,000, a 5% tax on consumer products does not really affect them. If they earn $20,000, a 5% tax represents a considerable proportion of their available income.

Therefore, the measure helps the poor more than the rich because the GST is a regressive tax.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle with what my colleague just said. I know that a 5% tax does not make as much difference to people making $200,000 than to those making $20,000. That is what I made for years, so I understand perfectly well. However, saving $1 per week over two months amounts to $8. That buys four extra litres of milk for two months. It is not enough.

I agree with my colleague. If they are going to do this, it should be on very targeted products and on a permanent basis. This, however, is a sop that, in the end, will not help those who really need it.

There are questions about removing the 5% for two months. Will that also be deducted from the GST rebate at the end of the year?

The government will definitely want to get its money back.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I read the bill, there is a whole host of problems, some of which have been articulated this evening. However, specifically, it treats different regions of the country, different provinces, very unfairly. I would suggest, it is in violation of the agreements that the federal government has signed with provinces in regard to HST and other shared taxation.

I am wondering if my colleague from the Bloc could expand on that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. That does not happen very often, but on this I agree. Once again, it shows the government's lack of planning, lack of vision and lack of consistency.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the vote coming up on the legislation is of significance to all members. As we are using the hybrid system, I would like to get some clarity from you with regard to the voting.

For example, if individuals are appearing virtually, are they in fact obligated to have their jacket and tie on if they are male? I think it would be valuable to know.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

As always, we will allow members to vote even if they do not have their tie on. We just want a quick yea or nay, and that is it.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing some of the people in my riding.

I want to acknowledge the people who are still fighting for employment insurance reform, because they are already in the spring gap. They will not make it to Christmas. Never mind Christmas trees and all that; they will not even be able to put food on the table, not until April. They know all about vulnerability. Earlier, members were talking about sloppy, temporary half measures and so on, but these people have been waiting for more than 20 years, probably since the Axworthy reform, for a way to make it to the end of the year. That is why I want to acknowledge them and thank them for keeping up the fight, because this is another battle the entire Bloc Québécois is fighting.

I also want to acknowledge the people in my riding who live in remote communities. The government is talking about a 5% tax holiday for two months. However, there are people in my northern riding who live in isolated areas where there are no roads. There are sometimes boats and planes in the winter. Otherwise, people have to use snowmobiles to get around. These people are already struggling to afford groceries and the cost of living. They do not just need a 5% tax break so that they can buy a lavish amount of food or a case of champagne. I want to recognize the Canada Post employees who are on strike, but also the residents of the Lower North Shore, who are having a hard time right now because Canada Post is the only carrier in their area and one of the things it delivers is food.

That said, these are really tough times for everyone. It is not necessary to broaden our perspective to know that this bill is a bad piece of legislation. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou explained that earlier, perhaps more calmly than I am now. I know she is very passionate and outspoken. She said that the bill is very flawed and that we cannot afford to support it.

First of all, people are going on and on about the idea of essentials. I have been hearing about all kinds of lists throughout the day. For example, a puzzle and a pair of dice are now essentials. This bill seeks to remove the 5% tax on dice, which will apparently bring great relief to part of the population for two months.

I know that is a ridiculous example. Not everyone is in a position to read bills, but I am, and I really have to wonder why the list contains toys and other items that will save people maybe a few pennies off the purchase price.

Of course, members have talked about food. My colleague talked a lot about that. This measure will not really help anyone. It will cover candy, catering services, alcohol, prepared foods, which are more expensive because they are prepared, and restaurant meals. I heard the party opposite say over and over again that, now, people will be able to go out to restaurants. For a family, dinner at a restaurant costs $100, $150 or sometimes even $200. For a family of four, five or six, going to a restaurant does not just cost $20. I have a family of six, and it is a lot more expensive than that. This measure does not cut it. This is not the kind of help that people need.

People here in Ottawa are living in a bubble. Perhaps the government should get out into the real world sometimes, rather than hastily cobbling a bill together without really thinking about how that bill will actually affect people. Then it might understand that this bill is not a real solution for ordinary folks.

My colleague opposite talked about heating, and I agree with him. Perhaps heating is an essential when compared to some of the items listed in the bill.

The Bloc Québécois has a problem with a second aspect of the bill. We tried as hard as we could to find a way to improve it, but we cannot amend the bill. We are in the House and things are moving very quickly. I saw it. Members were practically trying to keep me from speaking by saying that there was not really time for one last speech. Meanwhile, we had time for quite a few bells today. That is exactly why we need to take the time.

It is a technical issue. We are here as legislators to reflect and propose new ideas. We are not here simply to oppose in a foolish and stubborn way, but to oppose in order to improve things. Even if we are not voting in favour of the bill, the government still needs to listen the legislators. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment. I know that there are other parties that agree with this amendment proposed by my colleague from Shefford, who is calling for the bill to be studied in committee and for the Minister of Finance to come testify.

Legislation cannot simply be introduced like that. All of this was clearly improvised. Earlier, one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party said that December 14 was too late to buy a Christmas tree, even if it will supposedly be cheaper then. When a measure arrives this late, it is obvious that it was thrown together quickly in the hope that it will not be so bad and no one will notice the glaring flaws. That is truly what is happening. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to simply discuss it, but that is not going to happen. I can say that I had a taste of that medicine earlier.

I would also like to talk about other aspects, like business owners, for instance. This subject has come up a number of times, here and there. It is true that, as a society, Quebeckers are strong supporters of small businesses. My constituents on the north shore are no exception, and I cannot help but think about these businesses.

The government is proposing a measure, but it is not thinking about how things work in the real world. In a bar, it is not that easy to know what percentage of alcohol is going into a cocktail. Will it be exempt from the GST or not? Should bartenders start measuring everything proportionally to make sure they are really following the rules? Again, it may sound far-fetched and absurd, but we need to think of every possibility when drafting bills in order to see where the blind spots are.

It sounds like a great idea. Then again, I do not know if alcohol counts as an essential, although I do want to encourage our business owners. I thought of a joke there, but I am not going to share it. I was going to say that maybe alcohol is an essential for those who have to think about this bill. There, I said it. Still, we have to think about the blind spots and try to identify what is not working in the bills to help businesses. Walmart and Costco are not the only ones that will be selling discounted products. Sometimes I get the impression that the government is only thinking about them.

Where I live, we have a Walmart, but no Costco. We have some very small businesses too. These small businesses are going to have to change their programming, and that does not happen with a snap of the fingers. Changing programming takes technicians. Where are people supposed to find technicians when there is already a shortage of technicians? On top of that, this all needs to be done right across the country. That requires technicians, and they do not work for free. Then they have to come back again mid-February to do exactly the same thing. Small businesses have fewer staff and will be forced to take on an extra burden at their busiest time of the year. People may be getting a 5% tax break to go to a restaurant, which amounts to a $5 discount, but businesses are having to spend $3,000 out of pocket to implement this measure.

I would like to remind the government that businesses are owned by people. These are people who put their heart and soul into their business all the time, who work seven days a week, who are trying to improve their companies, who also have to hire people and who also have families. They are also going to be affected.

In light of all that, I am wondering whether this is really going to be worth it. The government has not considered all these consequences. They did not think it all through, so they assumed it would be easy. My colleague gave a detailed list of all the difficulties that businesses could face. They will have to identify which products are be tax-free. It could be tough.

I heard a government member say earlier that adult diapers would be exempt from the GST. I would have liked to ask him about that again. I checked the bill. I could not find it in there. I do not know where he saw that.

If it is hard for a government member to keep straight the contents of the bill he is defending, and if the government does not want us to study it in committee because it wants to move really quickly, why should we pass something like that? The member does not even know what is in his own bill. I do not have the bill in front of me. Let us say I have it here.

How are the businesses back home going to sort this out? How are the parents or the people buying the products going to sort this out? Are they going to walk around with a copy of the bill in their hands and look at the shelves and ponder whether the item is truly a soft toy with accessories? That is how it is worded in the bill. Are they going to check whether an item matches what is written in the bill? Is a parent really going to do that? In the bill, books are GST-exempt, but cut-out books are not. The parent will have to check the books to see if there are any cut-outs or stickers.

It will get complicated. I think it is too daunting. Consumers might not want to bother doing all that for the sake of 30¢. Maybe people will decide to take the item anyway because it is what they want, so who cares if it is not GST-exempt. I do not know if this measure is going to be as effective as the government thinks.

Members have been talking a lot about families. That makes sense. As my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said, it is the holiday season. Of course, not everyone celebrates Christmas, but it is the holiday season. Yes, there will be celebrations and family gatherings, so we want to help people. At the same time, the date is arbitrary. The list of goods that will be exempt from the GST and the timing are both very arbitrary.

I am the mother of three children, two of whom are over the age of 14. Parents are well aware that there are certain times of year that are more difficult, and I want to stress the word “times”. Ideally, there should be a GST exemption on children's clothing year-round. That is a huge burden on families. Let us not forget that, every year, in August and September, we hear about how expensive back-to-school time is. Lunch boxes, school bags, school supplies, clothing: all of those things are expensive. Then, of course, parents have to pay to register their children in this or that activity. In short, yes, back to school is a very expensive time of year, and Christmas is too, so we need to ask ourselves another question. Is this measure needed only at Christmastime?

I saw costumes included on the list of products in the bill. Maybe people need costumes. In any case, there is a big difference between costumes and clothing. What do people really need? What is the government really trying to give people?

Once again, it all boils down to the same thing. I apologize for repeating myself, but there is no thinking behind this. I have not talked about it yet, and I myself do not understand why. It is probably because the idea behind the bill was not properly thought out.

It was not about making a perfect bill. The goal was probably just to grab some media attention by telling people that the government was going to hand out a goody, a big treat. People were led to believe that it was a treat. Anyone with any sense at all quickly realized that this makes no sense. It is really just electioneering, but they are trying to pass it off as a treat. I almost said they are giving people a trick instead of a treat. It is too easy to make puns with this bill.

I am about to wrap up. Maybe we need to think about other things. This measure tells people to spend money on things that are not necessarily useful. I am not saying people do not want to go to a buffet every now and then for a festive occasion, or that they do not feel like cooking some nights because they are exhausted. Sometimes I pick up a rotisserie chicken at the grocery store, and that is on the list of GST-exempt products. It happens to us, too.

That said, is spending really saving? They say they want to help people. Are people really saving when they are spending money or when the government is trying to make them spend more? As I said before, these are not essential things. The Liberal-NDP government is so proud of itself, but this is not actually saving.

Besides saving money, the other thing we are interested in this evening is not the GST part, it is the part that has been set aside for the time being, the $250 cheque. I hope we can get back to that, because I have just as much or more to say about it. It is a measure that excludes people. The GST measure excludes things that people might appreciate having a discount on. It excludes some products that could really help people. The $250 cheque excludes some people outright.

It excludes people who do not have a lot of money, like seniors and students. Students may decide not to work during the year so that they can focus on their studies. It also excludes people with disabilities. It excludes people and actually penalizes them, if members can believe it, for not currently being in the labour market.

When people need housing, when they need food, when they need clothing—we cannot forget Maslow's advice to always go back to basics—a bill like this one, or a one-time cheque for $250 that goes to a select number of people, is not what they need.

I would like to talk about the amount. The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill for seniors, Bill C-319, presented by my colleague from Shefford. It seeks to end discrimination. I just talked about discrimination when I spoke about the people who may be excluded from receiving the $250 cheque, but the same holds for seniors. We want to restore fairness and fix the situation, but the government refuses.

It says this would make the measure way too expensive. However, between the $250 cheques and the $1.7 billion, at a minimum, for the GST break, that is already double what the Bloc Québécois was asking for. This may be a clue that what the government is really trying to do with its tax break and its $250 cheque—which should of course be coming soon, although we might not get it until April—is simply buy votes.

As I read the bill, something occurred to me. It is important to have a sense of humour. People are going through a tough time. Our constituents are struggling. When a bill like this comes along and we get the impression that what will be exempt from GST is what people might need to celebrate Christmas and New Year's Day, or perhaps even the Epiphany, since the measures will be in effect until February, it occurred to me that it is a good thing this was not introduced at Easter.

Imagine if the bill had been introduced at Easter. What goodies would they have given out? We would have had tax-free chocolate eggs, little pet bunnies and maybe yellow, purple and pink clothing. I am being sarcastic, but when a bill like this comes along, it is not hard to believe that this was the degree of thought that went into it. It is all about buying votes.